Everybody understands that weather is a complex subject, not fully mastered by meteorologists. Climate is much more complex than weather: it is repeated weather over a very long time axis.
At this conjecture it is fair to say that climate studies remain in infancy. Even the analysis of series of temperature observations at various locations is still the subject of much research and analysis. And with very limited historic series, the World laboratory has little data on the sole and unique experiment that is running since four or five billion years and may run another five billions. Results from model simulations provide interesting insights but they are far from delivering validated results on which policies may be built.
While apologists ring the alarm bell and call for immediate action, sceptics want to know more. They don’t like the idea to commit too many resources behind a strategy that raises other issues than the one that is intended to be resolved.
My personal position is neither warmist nor sceptic, and I'm definively no denier. I have no fundamental doubts about the observations and the underlying phenomena, even if my knowledge is limited to grasp all of these. I gladly use data and information gathered by the same institutions whose results are reviewed by IPCC. But there is a strong mismatch between the resilience shown by the climate and the overwhelming call for general mobilisation against its change. As explained in the policy section my conviction is that the issue is not about a few degree Fahrenheit or Celsius, but rather about taking hostage the whole humanity to accomplish an ideological purpose.
To make a risky comparison[1], a parallel can be drawn with the history of Christianity. At the council of Nicaea in 325 the disputes that were going on and on between the forefathers of the religion were settled and an orthodox creed was adopted. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 may be the equivalent of this council: global warming and its anthropogenic cause have been sanctuarized. Almost all evaluations made since by the scientific community and filtered by IPCC have been “at charge” with no recognition for dissenting voices, however competent they might be. But despite of tens of thousands of scientific articles (testimonies), thick reports (hermeneutics), and international conferences (councils), the original assessment (creed) did not change one iota.
In spite of minor heresies which were excellently repressed by the Inquisition, it was necessary to wait until the 16th century for Protestantism to emerge and to put in question some fundamental elements of the Catholic faith (trilogy, Eucharist), its hierarchical organization, and the ways and means to achieve salvation. We are now waiting for such heretical reform of the climate doctrine.
My heresy consists in appreciating differently three dogma:
- the attribution of almost all warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases,
- its catastrophic prophecy, and
- the urgency for global mobilization to save the planet.
And on top of this, I oppose all tendencies aiming at establishing a centralized governing superstructure to the World.
Changing the minds in these areas is an enormous challenge since so many constituencies make now a nice living out of climate activism.
From dogma it became a way of life, a scary complacency; and a business too, one more way to selfish biases.
[1] With my apologies to Christians if feeling offended by it. But not to the climatic apologists.